IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 557 of 2023 Decided on: 15.05.2025 Sunil Kumar. .…Petitioner. Versus Mansa Ram and Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed against order dated 31.05.2023, passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in C.M.A. No. 28 of 2023, whereby learned District Judge, Mandi, after setting aside order dated 28.03.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Mandi, H.P., has passed an order of interim injunction against petitioner herein restraining him from raising any 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:14099 ) construction on the suit land till the disposal of the main suit. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that respondent No. 1, Mansa Ram ( hereinafter to be referred as ‘plaintiff’) has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against petitioner herein Sunil Kumar and proforma respondents. The suit land has been described as the land comprised in Khewat No. 65/63, Khatauni No. 88/91 and 89/92, Khasra No. 828, 829, 841, 1076/843, 1077/843, 1078/843 and 827/1 Kita 7 measuring 6-01-4 bighas situated at Mohal Chalah/207, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P. 3. Alongwith suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an interim injunction against defendants for preservation of suit land till final disposal of the suit. 4. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 28.03.2023. In this backdrop, the plaintiff preferred an appeal under 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:14099 ) Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, before learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. The order impugned herein has been passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in the said appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 6. The impugned order reveals that learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. has taken into consideration the entries in the record of rights. According to such entries, the suit land is recorded in the ownership of plaintiff and other co-sharers. It has been found that all fields of suit land except Khasra No. 827/1 are owned and possessed by the plaintiff and other co-owners. As regards Khasra No. 827/1, though it is also recorded in ownership of plaintiff and other co-sharers, its nature has been shown as ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta’ in the record. Simultaneously, it has been found that the defendants are strangers to the suit land. Keeping in view the entirety of facts, learned District Judge, Mandi, has held the plaintiff 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:14099 ) to be entitled to interim injunction only to the extent of restraining defendants from raising any construction on the suit land. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has contended that Khasra No. 827/1 is a ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta’ and in this view of the matter, the injunction order should not have been passed by learned District Judge. The contention so raised needs to be rejected for the simple reason that even if some portion of the suit land is recorded as ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta’, it does not vest the defendants with any right to raise construction thereon. The only order passed against defendants is to injunct them from raising any construction on the suit land. 8. Prima facie, the defendants have no right to raise any construction on the suit land or to make any encroachment thereon. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is not going to prejudice the rights of the defendants in any manner, rather, it will help in preservation of the suit land for proper and 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:14099 ) effective adjudication of the matter in controversy at final stage. 9. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 15th May, 2025 Judge (sushma)